to help us get to the needed levels. the increases that we are looking at are largely associated with the labor and negotiations that took place last year and the contracts that are in place for the next couple of years. so those are going to increase our salary and fringe benefit cost to a certain degree and we know last year at this time we discussed reducing the city order and we brought it down to $180,000 to $130,000 and we talked about reducing it further going forward to $120,000. at this point i am not going to recommend that we any lower than we are now. we had a work order with the city attorney for the last five years and the utilization has fluctuated over the last five years and that has depended on a lot of factors and it has to do with the caseload and the volume of the cases and the length of board meetings and the hours that the city attorney has to sit with us and the complexity and uniqueness of the cases and the number of new board members that come on and increase of on boarding those members and also changes in the deputies that we see. so, it seems to me th

work done would you tell us a permit. >> good evening. this is my first time to remodel the house. i hired a contractor. and i followed his instructions and i didn't know he didn't get a permit. right now i already got the building permit and i'm looking for the electricity and the plumbing contractors so i can get those two permits to fix the property. so i hope you can reduce the penalty for me so i can have more resources to work on though fix this problem. thank you. >> excuse me. did you say you are looking for a replacement contractor? >> yes. >> how are you going to do whether or not the new contractor is able to file the appropriate permits? >> i already asked for recommendations and they are still looking for the proper ones. i haven't gotten one yet, but pretty soon i'm going to have one. >> okay. thank you. >> thanks >> mr. duffy? . good evening commissioners. congratulations on the new appointments. >> thank you. >> on this case we received a complaint that -- the department received a complaint on the 9th of october, 2012, remodeling done without permit. we

that there is going to be sufficient evidence to establish that it will meet or will not require a conditional use but that this entity. whatever it is. will not require it. >> okay, i move to continue this to madam director, what do you think? april, is our next opening, with... it would be, we added to april tenth? >> yeah. >> the 17th. >> is april 17th work? >> mr. williams? >> >> would you like to specify the length of the briefing and the timing and the subject matter. >> they can present a brief up to five pages in length. >> do i want to have to subject on the conditional use and the nature of the business? >> i would like it to focus on whether that leasee conforms to financial services. >> and my recommendation would be to have the permit holder briefed first and then have the appellant and the department respond. so the permit holder could be i am not sure how much time in advance. >> could i limit how much time they get when they come back? >> do you want to discuss that with the president. >> could i limit how much time they get when they come back? other than just now? >> we continue

commissioners here. that he felt that we were not prepared -- actually accused of us not reading briefs, and i just want to state we do take an oath when we agree to volunteer for this commission, and part of that oath includes the promise and the oath to be well prepared for all hearings and be ready to vote on all matters before us, so i personally take great offense at the accusation that any member of this board is not well prepared and has not put in hours upon hours to prepare for each and every matter before us. we are public servants here, and as a fellow former public servant i would think that mr. kopp would afford us that same presumption of competence and dedication to what we have taken on when we take an oath to do the work here, so i have not heard apart from making that very clears -- i have not heard anything that would sway me to vote to grant a rehearing in this case. there's no new material facts, nothing whatsoever presented to us that would make me vote to grant a rehearing. >> i'm in concurrence with that opinion. it is a narrow issue that is before us which is the zon

hurtado and darryl honda and ann lazarus is absent this evening and we have our staff joining us this evening. i am cynthia goldstein. i am the board's executive director and are joined with want dids that have cases before the board tonight. scott sanchez is here. john quan is here management of the public works. jarvis is here with taxis and municipal services and katherine markum is here from the san francisco police department department bureau. at this time if you could go over the meeting guidelines and conduct the swearing in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers. please carry on conversations in the hallway. the board rules of presentation are as follows. each side has even minutes to present their case and people affiliated with the parties must be in this time and members of the public have three minutes to address the board but no rebuttals. to assist the members members are asked but not required to speaker card or business card to staff when you come up to the podium. speaker cards and pens are available on the left side of t

it out and allow them to be able to reduce the number of issues that is before us, and therefore be able to not only take care of -- any substantive concerns in agreement with the appellant but allow the permit holder to correct any of the procedural issues that have been brought up-to-date. >> i view this -- the issue here -- i mean what has been presented and the testimony we received and particularly from planning is very troubling to me and seems to me this is exactly called out as the jurisdiction requester has call it out, the serial permitting problem, and i think that -- i think it's a catch me if you can situation, and oh you solve that problem. we will take a slerch hammer to it. gone like it wasn't an issue. these are sophisticated people and this is a problem. if you're so sophisticated and finding loopholes around the way everyone else is required to do it is deeply problematic to me and i am inclined to grant the request. if a continuous is preferred on the part of all parties i would go that route but i think everyone needs to delve in and if there is an environmental r

interior only and no change of use, and the person's name was mcaretta 2, 16/12. i don't know what happened, or why they didn't continue with that. the subsequent permit was issued. and to comply with the notice of violation. i have the details of that. but i believe that it was in november, the 5th, it was a permit issued for a demo of interior walls and removing of the suspended ceiling to comply with the notice of violation and the future will be under separate permit. and that did not go through the planning department it does not need to go through the planning department. so it is a permit application, maybe he did come in. >> mr. duffy, this scope of work normally probably would have been an over the counter. >> it is the over the counter. i don't know why unless, you know, some people think that like he indicated that he needed to aggregate the demo work plus the new ti work. >> some people start with the demo department and we have seen that earlier tonight. but some people start with the smaller part and move to the bigger one and expedites the thing but we like them to get the pe

and the permit holder, given the fact that he has a relatively small building, it is for his own use and that there has already been a bite taken out of it by the planning commission. >> >> okay. i have similar leaning. i have definite sympathies for the individuals and the people who reside in the stage house building. but i think that in this instance, i think that what was very lucidating to me was the comments of the zoning administrator and the visuals provided with respect to the actual impacts. i think that in reading the materials from the appellant's brief, i just disclosed it, and i actually read his briefs. and i was under a different impression and one that where the impact would be much more severe. so for those reasons and some of the reasons that commissioner fung stated my leanings are to uphold the permit. >> yeah. for me it is a little difficult case because of the fact for one i sympathize with any obstruction of this kind, especially in even if it does not directly block the sunlight, i think that there is going to be an impact so i am sympathetic to that. but wha

a series of permits, to get us here, and that have problems, and all that we are asking for is that you deny this permit so that they can come up with one set of permits so that it actually can be done. and i have to also emphasize that there is an area on the landing of the staircase, the front steps going up that encroach on to my client's property and so that has to be addressed also before that permit can be issued. >> mr. soriano? >> i promise not to take all of the rebuttal time because i am not fearing anything new. it is nothing that deal with the specific permit. i do want to answer a question that mr. fung had about why are we not moving forward if there were exceptions for us to go ahead and do that. the reason is that the existing permit that is being held up by this appeal, it requires replacement of the stucco work and so we need to be able to address the stucco work before the installation of the windows while we appreciate the exception that was made it has not allowed the work to proceed. it is causing the work stand still and financial damages to the project owner. so

to san franciscans. but it's especially heartwarming to us to be able to collaborate and to bring housing and services together and the collaboration between mercy housing and st. anthony's. we would like to thank banc of america, who was our capital partner in the new markets program and again, we're simply thrilled to be part of this. it speaks perfectly to the vision that many of us share for how to move families and communities forward. i have to say that i for one, if this is what the groundbreaking is like, i am incredibly excited to go to the grand opening celebration. thank you all. [ applause ] >> thank you, nancy. i would like to make sure that we thank the staff of st. anthony's, who is here in force today. raise your hands and thank them. [ applause ] a couple of other grantors to st. anthony's, thanking jack fitzpatrick, who is here. stephanie and the koretfolks that have already been mentioned. we're actually going to do a groundbreaking. so i would ask those involved on that, that is everybody on the stage pretty much to start moving into the pit. so if you can stand up

walking distance. you see the kids that are using what's provided, but there is so much opportunity for this to be a stronger, more welcoming, healthier, cleaner, safer place for the people in this community to play. there are going to be new green areas, a full-size basketball court, outdoor fitness equipment, community gardens, a brand-new clubhouse. it's going to be a much more welcoming spot for a neighborhood that really needs it. ♪ ♪ >> good evening and welcome to the january 16th, 2013 meeting of the san francisco board of appeals. the presiding officer this evening is board president chris hwang joined by vice president frank fung, commissioner lazarus and commissioner darryl honda. commissioner hurtado is absent this evening. the deputy city attorney will provide the board with any legal advice i'm cynthia goldstein the board's executive director. we're joined from representatives from the city departments with the cases before us. scott sanchez is here, he is representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector represen

departments with the cases before us. scott sanchez is here, he is representing the planning department and planning commission. joseph duffy, senior building inspector representing the department of building inspection. john kwong is here and i'm not sure if they are in the room, but i'm expecting representatives from the environmental health section of the department of health. if you could conduct the swearing-in process. >> the board requests that you turn off all phones and pagers so they will not disturb the proceedings. please carry on conversations in the hallways. the board's rules of presentation are as follows, appellants, permit holders and department representatives each have seven minutes to present their cases and three minutes for rebuttals. people affiliated with these parties must include their comments within the 7 or 3-minute periods. members of the public, who are not affiliated with the partis have up to 3 minutes each to address the board, but no rebuttals. to assist the board in the accurate preparation of minutes, the members of public who wish to speak on an i

this? anybody where can we go that? it is frustrating. >> it is not us, we are dealing only with the permit. >> it is frustrating >> i understand. >> and for the inspectors with four nvo on hand and can she stop the work and inspect the house? what happened to it, why is someone filing the nov? you know? but with the four nov on hand they still be able to work if they inspectors at that time stop the work and find out what is going on, we probably would not be here and talk about and we are saying how much set backs and they were saying three inches and i was saying two foot and we are arguing if the inspectors at the time when the first nov filed they gained access and received the whole picture of how the room looked like and then how come, she can't get any access to the building and just an nov on it? >> what is the nov for? >> i have all of those questions and i don't understand it. >> yeah. >> so i just hope that for the set back, 3 foot, i accept that, for the fence, the previous one is chain fence, i don't know what their propose to 6 or 4 foot, we have not talked ab

? and therefore, you know, use more city resources, for purposes of advancing the interest of permit holder that i believe has done some things that are unseemly. >> i understand your concern, i share those concerns as well. and you know i was surprised by what i saw at the sight today and however i feel that this is the best resolution for all parties, moving forward for the appellant and for the permit holder for the city that this is the best way to insure that we are going to get a project that will comply with the project of the planning code. >> the next thing that i wanted to mention is that if so the next meeting that we have on the calendar is the 20th and if you believe that all parties can deliver and there is not going to be any kind of a problem in delivering, you know, said documents, to each other, timely, enough time to review, the next meeting that we have is march sixth and so if you are going to undertake this ambitious time line, it would behoov you do do it so that it happens on the 20th, rather than the 26th. >> one discussion that we had outside is that the day before we are

Excerpts 0 to 29 of about 30 results.